Talk:Fidesz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Far right designation

I move to consider the Fidesz party as being a right-wing to far-right party. My primary argument being that in many recent media articles, particularly from The New York Times and The Independent, the Orbán government has been referred to as far-right. Moreover, the party has also been called "soft fascist" due to the repealment of many democratic norms. Fascism is, of course, considered a far-right ideology, so it is fair to consider Fidesz to be a party representing right-wing to far-right views. Further news articles besides the ones I have just cited again refer to the party as far-right or alt-right, and this list is by no means exhaustive. Finally, albeit anecdotal, I have also spoken to a political scientist, who considers the current Hungarian government to be far-right, and would expect most political scientists to agree with that view. As such, I think it would be very fair to change the party ideology to reflect the contemporary media and academic perspective.

As for the reason I am moving for this changes at this particular time? The recent changes to the Hungarian labour laws has led to further media scrutiny, and a greater number of media outlets have openly identified the Orbán government as far-right, as seen in the citations above. I think it would be, at this point, much more damaging not to present the Fidesz party as right-wing to far-right.

The problem is all of these trials are coming from only those news and media concerns, individuals who in the past eight years as well attacked Fidesz and the Hungarian Government, many times with groundless or exaggerated accusations with a huge double measure comparing to other states where the same or worse happened, but just because they did not share conservative right-wing views and disagreed on more high-level political questions, they were not attacked at the same manner. I it is also true for the labor laws, and just because these media groups try to ride and blow up all the happenings, since the law and the events has not any connection to any-far right views or attitude (considering there are at-least two real far-right political parties in the Hungarian political life in oppositon or recension to Fidesz and they don't share the same views). Consequently in order to remain objective with a proper balance, in the ideology section you may put that some media groups since many years in opposition have these opinions, but it cannot be stated as a fact.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC))

I think I understand why we are disagreeing. The Fidesz party has a history of being criticised by the opposition and left-wing parties since 2010. As such, I understand why there is a lot of caution to labelling the party as far-right or fascist; there may be an agenda for doing so. Looking at the section above (Political position), it appears that there was also disagreement over the party ideology. It was decided, based on contemporary news articles, that the party was right-wing. It was also decided that for the party to be labelled as far-right, we would to "first find reliable sources". The news articles I have cited are from The New York Times, The Independent, The Atlantic and Vox, which are all independent news organisation that do not have an agenda. That being said, I do not think that it is fair to label the party as exclusively far-right, since other news organisation, e.g. The Guardian, have called the party right-wing, as opposed to far-right. In the added sentence "mostly by those media groups and individuals who have been in opposition to the Hungarian government and criticized the party and it's [sic] policy since 2010", I cannot agree with claim "have been in opposition", as these are independent news organisations reporting on Hungary, nor do I agree with the phrase "criticized the party and it's [sic] policy since 2010", as these media groups have not been calling the party far-right since 2010; it is a recent development. As such, I believe this has satisfied the "reliable sources" condition. I have undone the additional sentence for the time being until consensus is reached, and am again moving to change the political position to "right-wing to far-right". MWKwiki (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the problem is regardless some media goups are officially regarded "independent", there are those groups who consistently attacking/labeling/accusing the party with some designations that does not hold (regardless what it is, if there is a chance it is done, even if the epithes are varying...mostly the left side and media groups nationally/internationally who traditionally criticizing and labeling right wing parties, or their policies (even if the right/left designation in some other countries have no interpretation based on different political heritage, but the direction and idea have common directions)...Hungary and it's government is recently a target mainly beucase of it's anti-immigration policy and opposition to the some European policies (European United States vs. Federalism of strong national states, etc. in scope of the forthcoming European Parlamentiary Elections). Fidesz factually has no connection to any far-right agenda, not even commited such. Thus such opinons may only represented as an opinion of some circles. If you are not agreeing with the added sentence, we should rephrase together until we both agree (don't misunderstand me, I have no problem mentioning what these media groups say, that it should be evaluated and identified properly). Conseuqently, do not change the political position to "right-wing to far-right", becuase it is false and not even a generally accepted view and there is no consensus for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC))

Agreed. I will not modify the official party political position. I have added a sentence explaining the Fidesz party's response to the allegations of right-wing extremism with supporting sources. Feel free to modify if there is still disagreement, but this should be quite close now. MWKwiki (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine, thank you!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC))

This is funny how the hysterical leftists & their far-leftists friends happen to spam "far-right" when new antisemitic acts took place in France. Moreover, it shouldn't be forgotten that those same leftists tolerate the islamo-leftism & radical Salafist movement & mosquees in European countries (especially on the West). You should stop look for scapegoats on the right-wing side & behave like real adults with a free will by questioning yourselves. And to end it all, fascism is the intolerance of point of views which is typically characterized by the leftists again nowadays by censoring EVERYONE who got anti-immigration views (Illegam Muslim wave), national conservatism & nationalist views (as people who actually love their country & opposed to multiculturalism that doesn't work at all) of "racists, xenophobes" etc. Actual censorship took place by banning people like Candace Owen, Sargon of Akkad (Twitter) etc. from the big social media techs companies, to hide their embarass. Fascism originally didn't have a specific political position. Before spreading your mainstream media fake news & your defamations, go read some decent alternative media. You should wonder WHY mainstream media actually got very poor ratings & why they're so unpopular, & why there are more & more people who are mistrustful of them. And finally, you've ironically become what you desperately claim to fight: https://ukusablog.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/the-nazi-party-was-a-left-wing-liberal-elite-progressive-political-correctness-movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by New00100 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously Fidesz has not any connection to far-right, this has been discussed throrougly, because there is one European Union and one Hungarian self-governing elections ahead, the opponents of the governing party make every effort to maintain defamation, thus every such attempts should be reverted, Wikipedia cannot be the battleground of the recent pre-election campaigns, shall it be Fidesz or any other party.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

Communists Socialists are only good on lying (i.e. 2006 protests), crying & bitching. I'd like to remind those ignorants that the MSZP got Communist roots, that it is a party formed from the fall of Communism to succeed that same Communist party. If those immature kids got time to spam their shit propaganda, they should spend it on changing Jobbik position "from center to far-right" due to how their current leadership is swapping MASSIVELY to the left liberal block, as it was stated both by Fidesz & the new right-wing party "Our Home Movement".

Please sign your comments in the future. We should remain inside the framework if Wikipedia, at least Kocka78 admitted my argumentation is right but he/she falsely believed we may avoid WP:NPOV, etc. As per consensus, in the Ideology section the accusations with far-right is already included, but we cannot change the party designation for something that is not valid.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC))

References

@KIENGIR:

Looking over the last 500 edits, I find that at least the following editors (also including me, and possibly others) have believed that a right-wing to far-right designation is justified and have consequently attempted to change the party's listed political position in the infobox, each time providing reliable media sources:

@Kocka78: @MWKwiki: @2600:1700:ec50:b070:2c2:c6ff:fe3e:571a: @WyGolf: @삭은사과: @Blue-Haired Lawyer: @Jeff6045:

At this point, I do not believe the claim that there is editor consensus that the party does not have far-right tendencies can be justified, only that editors on one side are far more conflict averse and less inclined to litigate the issue on the talk page at length.

It should be noted that international observers have detected a marked shift rightward in the party's positions and policies in recent years rendering some previous discussions and possible consensuses reached moot. Furthermore, ALL comparable (and, in fact, allied) parties in other European countries that I can think of are designated as right-wing to far-right in their respective wiki pages, including Lega Nord, Law and Justice, Freedom Party of Austria, Alternative for Germany, Sweden Democrats, UK Independence Party, National Rally (France), and Vox (political party). In fact, Fidesz may not only be just one example of the wave of right-wing to far-right parties in Europe, but the prototypical example. If one cannot label Fidesz as such, the designations of all the aforementioned parties would also need to be contested.

I must also point out that arguments put forth against the right-wing to far-right designation by KIENGIR and New00100 in this section are eerily reminiscent of proclamations made in Soviet propaganda denouncing the adversarial mendacious imperialist capitalist media of the West. I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing that Pravda is the only reliable source of information on the Soviet Communist Party, and that all accusations by the hostile Western media and their internal allies should be disregarded as propaganda.

I think the issue at hand should be re-examined. I propose a designation as right-wing to far-right; I believe it is justified by reliable sources, and is already used for parties with comparable politics and policies.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay Hodec,

there is no problem if you wish to discuss the issue - as you are one of the editors who recurrently added criticist material that had to be consistently POV-repaired -, however the analogy with other parties/articles have no relevance since every case has to be discussed and evaluated properly on the particular context.

However regarding this statement of yours reminiscent of proclamations made in Soviet propaganda denouncing the adversarial mendacious imperialist capitalist media of the West -> I have to protest intensively and have to treat it as ridicoulous, since the so-called "West" does not have a uniform view about this, since the whole issue is between left-wing-liberal politics and right-wing conservative politics, without any geography (that has been already discussed as well)

I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing that Pravda is the only reliable source of information on the Soviet Communist Party, and that all accusations by the hostile Western media and their internal allies should be disregarded as propaganda. -> Regarding this, if you do not retreat and apologize immediately, I have to treat it as a serious personal attack, since I'm heavily against Communism that made horrible especially Hungary's fate among others and personally the Communists persecuted my family as well. Shame on you of trying to deteriorate from the point on abusive personal speculations!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

Firstly, I must take issue with your characterisation of my edits as "criticist". The content I added reflected the overwhelming findings of respected international news media institutions. By your metric, inclusion of any and all unflattering content is "criticist". Is adding content regarding human rights abuses by the Maduro government in Venezuela also "criticist"? Or adding information about the Cambodian genocide to the page for Khmer Rouge?

A significant portion of the content in the article was added or modified by me. Did I make some errors along the way? Sure. In fact, I always find and amend some during the second and third readings, however, you were sometimes "correcting" my edits while my editing of sections was still incomplete/in progress. However, I must again object regarding your supposed "POV-repairs". I think I was impartial and objective in my edits throughout, and that my editing reflected the source material to the best of my abilities. Not a few of your objections were actually levied against the sources themselves. Other times, I disagreed with your objections but relented out of a sense of exasperation, including on the issue we're discussing now.

Of course precedent has relevance. If a party in a neighbouring state shares Fidesz's ideology and is regarded as right-wing to far-right, and Fidesz is not, it is only reasonable to assume that one of the designations is wrong.

I'm sorry, but the New York Times, Washington Post, The Independent, Deutsche Welle, Reuters, the Associate Press, etc. are widely regarded as non-political investigative outlets.

"Regarding this, if you do not retreat and apologize immediately, I have to treat it as a serious personal attack, since I'm heavily against Communism that made horrible especially Hungary's fate among others and personally the Communists persecuted my family as well."

Some of my ancestors were also maltreated during the communist era. What's your point? Why do you think I'm using the Soviets as an example, because I agree with the discredited Kremlin line? The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics; the arguments that are now almost universally ridiculed and dismissed. If you'd like a more contemporaneous example, take the Venezuelan government. My assessment stands. I apologise for nothing. Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms.

Regards. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry,

your generalized examples have no analogies to what happened here thus reflecting to any of them (Maduro government in Venezuela & Cambodian genocide) is out of scope here. As explained also, yes, you tried to be collaborative in the end, but the problem was most even many of your complete additions lacked necessary neutrality, i.e. you added an information, but you ignored the causes, thus the for the reader you suggested a negative outcome blamed on one party, but you ignored the reason and preliminary actions of the other party, thus the info you placed became one-sided, even when you summarized from one source, meaning you investigated not the subject entirely thus it harmed WP:NPOV (this is one example, but the talk page is full with all the cases, with professional explanations that should be clear, etc.).

I disagree with that, politics and their categorization and sensitivity is differing in various states, cultures, continents, we simply cannot make such analogies, however, in Europe having a rich history as well with far-right parties we may easily recognize something that is far-right or not, or just accused to be far-right, since we live it in our skin, etc.

Yes, but all of these media outlets you listed are tradititonal critics on any right-wing politics and many times their opinion an sumarizations are fay beyond on a common sense, and I did not object them to present in the relevant section, but changing because of that the party ideology is weird, since not the media outlets decide or dictate party ideologies.

The fact you ancestors have been also maltreated, does not redempt you from ad hominem personal attacks, an I am surprised you don't see my point. Why would I think you'd agree with the Kremlin line or anything else (how does it came what you may think or not, I cannot judge that, I can judge only what you describe)? NO way, I refuse this again - and I can speak obviously my own behalf - NO, my arguments are not by any means same of any "Communist regimes" arguments and you commited a very big mistake insisting this again, since you again try to deteriorate from the point! I did not say or agumented that would not be true, or would not be factual or neutral (while the Communist regimes have generally twisted information, lied, manipulated and caused a horror to the people), thus you assesment does NOT stand, it is your personal and mistaken opinion, a shameful and offensive one. It is not may fault that there are some media opinions that have overexaggerated opinions that are many times far from the reality (and may be "universally ridiculed and dismissed" as well in some particular cases and the Venezuelan Government and Fidesz have zero connection to each other, cannot be compared by any means)

"I apologise for nothing." -> Unfortunately this a huge problem, if you don't see what you did wrong.

"Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." -> This you should address to yourself, when you started to deteriorate from the topic and create a pseudo West (East?, North? South?) conflict and with an unprofessional way you made a horrible accusation, insisting a false analogie with the Communists. This is definately not as "legitimate criticism", since all my arguments are standing and are factual and struggling for ultimate neutrality.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

I do not feel that I needed to ferret out and present a government response to every accusation made by sources widely held to be reputable to maintain NPOV.

As to the Soviet comparison, I was using a prominent historical example to illustrate that governments deflecting legitimate internal and external criticism by claiming reports to be motivated by an alien and hostile ideology has precedence, and that such arguments are highly spurious. The point was - just to reiterate - rhetorical, presenting it as me casting aspersions on your character is either a misinterpretation or a purposeful misrepresentation. I thus do not feel the need to apologise. As far as I understand, you also argue that my comparison is improper because you believe that the Soviet regime was bad, and you do not believe the same for the current Hungarian government. It is exactly because the Soviet state was regarded as far-left that I used the comparison to illustrate the disingenuity of your argument.

Just to point out the obvious, you compare different things that are similar in some aspects, not things that are exactly the same. That's the point of comparisons.

Since you've taken punitive action against me, I hope the issue will be rendered resolved if I am absolved during the process.

I regret the devolution of this discussion. Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, especially that has no conenction to any "government response", if you add information on the tensed situation with Ukraine, but you add nothing of the root causes, as well, if you quote from a source that does not say accuarately what the party or any of it's member really said, but a twisted version and not a "government response" would correct it, but we have sources of the original statement uncut, etc.

Your "Soviet Comparison" is falied since I did not lie/twisted information/became blind/or maintained propaganda, but I represented the neutral, factual and accuare position. Your deduction is again flawed, since I never did any comment on your person, I just commented of the activity/happenings, because I've learned in my WP experience so far "the best is to comment on content, not editors", that you seem not to understand or recognize and with a good faith I did that. Here there is no West or East, North or South, there is an open debate between two political sides and their media, that is not uniform by geographical terms and your mistaken example of the Soviets is anyway a boomerang and not any means would hold to any of my demonstrations, but better on such partuclar twist or overexaggerations, that I pinpointed, anyway such deterioration is harmful but what is striking, they simply does not hold. Excuse, me I have an experience with WP:Civility, thus I don't have any "purposeful mininterpretation", simply you did a mistake by this accusation and failed analogy (even if you believe in it, however it raises deep concerns if you don't recognize it's untenability...).

As far as I understand, you also argue that my comparison is improper because you believe that the Soviet regime was bad, and you do not believe the same for the current Hungarian government. It is exactly because the Soviet state was regarded as far-left that I used the comparison to illustrate the disingenuity of your argument. -> this is again a fallacious argumentation, you understand the things improperly. Again, my argumentations have zero analogy to the Communist regimes, as explained above. Secondly, nothing depends on "my belief", since you presented some material, and I pinpointed the inaccuracy or POV issues with them. I have zero involvement of what you "believe" or not "believe", because it HAS NO CONNECTION TO THE SUBJECT.

Just to point out the obvious, you compare different things that are similar in some aspects, not things that are exactly the same. -> I may have said this to you, also by your current argumentation. You (try to) argue with A or the real point or subject would be B. I argue B and as well add C, but you continue your deduction with A and their derivatives and try to join AB or AC, etc.

Since you've taken punitive action against me -> I did not take any "punitive actions" necessarily, since you did not understand/recognize what you did wrong and the weight how you did your serious accusations that is heavily disgusting and and offensive insult to me, I hope the community will be give you some inputs on this that you might consider per wikietiquette. I am sorry if you don't "feel to apologize" and you still don't see why you went by far. I also don't like this discussion evolved to this, honestly...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:, How about Poland's Law and Justice party or Slovak National Party? They are placed on far-right by foreign media. Are they wrong too? Also My country's major media is placing Fidesz on the far-right. (JoongAng Ilbo is major right-wing newspaper in south korea) Are my country's media is also traditionaly critical on right-wing politics or Fidesz? (Jeff6045 (talk)

References

Jeff6045 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jeff, as I told you, I am experienced enough to enter only those issues I have the ncessary knkowledge or expertise. I know that Law and Justice is as well got heavy critics, but I am not familiar with all the details on that level, that I may stand for a position, thus I let this to those who have. Regarding the Slovak SNS I have more information because directly/indirectly it's politics is pointing as well Hungarian affairs. It was surely a pure far-right nationalist party under Ján Slota and some subsequent leaders, as I see nowadays they try to maintain a more moderate form and as well eliminated members of the old nationalist stuff, as they are in colation with one interethnic party where Hungarians are as well represented. Beyond this, their current stance I did not met with such high nationalist scandals, however there was a current issue of punishing to sing any foreign national anthem on some sport events (including Hungarian), but it is said that has been corrected.

If your country's media is placing Fidesz far-right, that is a serious problem, since Fidesz gave the first female Roma MEP, they are with alliance with Roma organizations, they was the first to place the Holocaust Commemoration Day in Hungary and they declared zero tolerance on Anti-Semitism and banned and far-right movement under their reign even to march or commemorate such events, etc. As I told you, even the Hungarian opposition who openly making the harshest critics agains Fidesz does not treat the party far-right, because it is not true all the people would laugh who live in Hungary and people can make wise comparisons wha tmeans really far-right, since they have a first hand experience not just in the interwar periods, but also recent politics (like Jobbik which after some turnaround now tries to show a more moderate standpoint).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:, I'm very curious that you are even not familiar with Slovak national party or poland's law and justice, how do you know all western mainstream media(such as NYT, Washington post or guardian), is against your party? Also not only major western media is placing Fidesz but also major mideast media such as Al Jazeera is placing Fidesz on the far-right. In addition I will add description to article that the party is placing on the far-right by majority of mainstream media unless you give us the reliable sources that the party is not far-right. Please leave reliable academic sources that describes the pary is not far-right with specific reasons. Or else Your actions on Wikipedia article can be considered as Vandalism.

@Jeff6045:,

Your argumentation is problematic.

1. I did not say that I am not familiar with SNS

2. I don't see how the thorough knowledge on Poland's party would have any connection to your assertion: how do you know all western mainstream media(such as NYT, Washington post or guardian), is against your party

3. You assertion is false, I never said such like all western mainstream media..is against your party (and I even cannot properly interpret what you'd mean by my party??)

4. In addition I will add description to article that the party is placing on the far-right by majority of mainstream media unless you give us the reliable sources that the party is not far-right -> Please refrain from editing the article such way until the discussion is ongoing, since we have a current WP:CONSENSUS and you did not build a new one yet. On the other hand reliable sources are already present in the article, and it is quite odd you claim for sources to deny something that does not even hold, but we may investigate more sources on this. (anyway you may add anything to the top of the "Ideology and policies" and "Criticism and controversies" section per current consensus.

5. Please read our policies better, none of my activities in WP have ever been Vandalism, you should anyway get familiar more with WP:NPOV, I have almost 9 years experience, so please...

6. I am sorry you completely disregarded in your answer the facts I listed that contradicts being the party "far-right", however these facts cannot be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I've further delineated my reasoning for the argument on the Incidents noticeboard. Since I have a feeling that we may not arrive at an agreement on this subject, I'll close the subject and let the other wikipedians interested in the issue judge its merits.

Just to reiterate, we're discussing whether the party should be designated as right-wing to far-right in the infobox (and potentially the lede). Discussion about the Criticism section is not relevant.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay,

I see, however there is no problem with any discussion until it stays in a moderate manner, with the necessary respect and time to everyone to express themselves, even there are issues that my be hard to resolved or it would be long and time consuming as well, but that happens here often. I consider the Criticism and other appropriate sections relevant since there we may put such info that is discussed here right now, but it seems forgotten and makes that mistaken feeling like some information could not be added to the article...the question is where and how, etc. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Of course. As said, I may have been too forceful in some of my arguments, however, I find that when a whole swath of sources is regarded as suspect/illegitimate and there is no agreement where we can find facts, honest intellectual discussion can become impossible and instead devolve into an exchange of prejudices and opinions.

Regarding the Criticism section ... We must reach some consensus regarding some basic facts that may be contentious. Otherwise, we may as well not have ideology/political position listed in the infobox and we end up moving everything and anything contentious into the Criticisms section. However, as it stands, while you may consider the far-right designation problematic, others may view the right-wing designation the same.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If I may add my thoughts, since I was the one who created this section and wanted to reopen the discussion again. My original arguments were based on independent news-sources. This was rightfully contested by KIENGIR, as these sources have a liberal bias, and are disputed by the Fidesz party. I would instead like to argue from a different line of thinking based on academic and voter placement of the party on the ideological spectrum, as it is well understood that voters can accurately place parties on a relative Left-Right spectrum.

Let us look at the Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems (CSES), which released Module 5 on Hungary on 21-May-2019. According to the Macro report, (6a) one expert designated Fidesz as a 9 on the 0-10 Left-Right spectrum, where the range 9-10 classifies a far-right party. In (6c), Fidesz was also designated as a very populist (9) party on a 0-10 Populist spectrum.

Looking at OpenDemocracy's analysis of Hungary's parties, which uses data from the European Social Survey, we see that there has been a far-right shift between 2015 to 2017. In 2015, "18.3% of respondents who felt closest to Fidesz were far-right" while "in 2017, 28.7% of Fidesz supporters were far-right". Moreover, at the end of the analysis they summarise, "looking at these numbers, it is clear that there is a rise in far-right support for Fidesz and a decline of far-right support for Jobbik, although it is still substantial. When comparing overall numbers, in the 2017 data 77.6% of far-right respondents supported Fidesz and 19.4% Jobbik". One should be able to uncontroversially extrapolate that this trend has continued to 2019, and that the Fidesz party has become more far-right.

Hence, without relying on disputed liberal-biased media sources, and only considering expert and voter views, we see a marked increase in far-right identification, and it should be uncontroversial to label the Fidesz party as Right-Wing to Far-Right.

-MWKwiki (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Jay,

the fact I described a phenomenon of some sources being inaccurate and having an exaggerated tone have nothing wrong if this is the fact, and regarding our arguments it is pretty sharply goes into the details regarding facts, I disagree it would be hard to grasp what a politician said or what happened in the reality with a case, etc. Our discussion could not evolve to two prejudices (at least from my behalf), since I concentrated on the facts (see any other content issue we discussed), about the ideology and this designation's "fairness" we've made longer discussion that included more "philosophy", but the root has been also there is there any facts that would support this.

I do believe that party ideology (infobox) are decided by the party and it's members. On the other hand, in the article about the "ideology & policies" or "criticism" anything may be added, but we should not mix the two. Yes there may be more considerations of the people, but facts canot be ignored (I may say for some orange is looking yellow, or others it is looking green, but we cannot deny it is yellow, if it is yellow).

MWKwiki,

Thank you for your comment. I fully agree with the populist designation and metric. Regarding the other spectrum not, because from the so-called six anti-Semitism, anti-Roma and similar should significantly increase and at 9 or 10 it should be almost Nazism.

It is true that the party preference in first and second place is quite analogous among voters - especially on which party's supporters being disappointed and change their support to another party, etc., it is an interetsing research of the political examinators - but also Jobbik supporters voted in mass amount to left side parties against Fidesz, moreover now officially all the left parties made coalition and run common candidates with Jobbik...then we may conclude as well the left parties would have a significant voters of t hefar-right, thus they becase as well far-right? Party ideologies would be determined by the voters? How? If somebody disappointed in a party and vote another, would it necessarily mean he did not change mind as well? If I have liberal party, i.e. and surpisingly in an election also those supporter chose me that were a supporter of another party or ideology, but because of other reasons (lack of chance of their party, or I am sympathethic, or I am treated less worse than another party,etc. various reasons) would make my liberal party i.e. far-left/fair right? Would my ideology or the party's ideology change by this? No...(KIENGIR (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Hi KIENGIR,

Apologies, but I found it very difficult to follow your response.

"Regarding the other spectrum not, because from the so-called six anti-Semitism, anti-Roma and similar should significantly increase and at 9 or 10 it should be almost Nazism." I can't say I understand the comment on anti-Semitism or anti-Roma views. I don't think that's relevant. For the Left-Right spectrum, we have a range from 0-10, where 0-1 is far-left views, while 9-10 are far-right views. That is all the spectrum is saying and there is no comment on Nazism. As I cited, both experts and voters seem to place the Fidesz party around this range of the spectrum.

"but also Jobbik supporters voted in mass amount to left side parties against Fidesz, moreover now officially all the left parties made coalition and run common candidates with Jobbik...then we may conclude as well the left parties would have a significant voters of t hefar-right, thus they becase as well far-right?" I can't say I understand this comment much either. The openDemocracy analysis only states that Jobbik has taken on a more centrist image. The fact that left parties have voted with Jobbik against Fidesz does not mean they are far-right, only that they are in united opposition to Fidesz's policies. Two people/parties can agree for different reasons.

"Party ideologies would be determined by the voters? How? If somebody disappointed in a party and vote another, would it necessarily mean he did not change mind as well?" Voters are asked to place the parties on the 0-10 Left-Right spectrum. These details can be found in the analysis I cited, and if you wish to further investigate, can look at the methodology of the original survey. It is not my duty to explain this. I have provided my citations.

"If I have liberal party, i.e. and surpisingly in an election also those supporter chose me that were a supporter of another party or ideology, but because of other reasons (lack of chance of their party, or I am sympathethic, or I am treated less worse than another party,etc. various reasons) would make my liberal party i.e. far-left/fair right? Would my ideology or the party's ideology change by this? No..." I do not follow this counter-argument. This is a misunderstanding of the methodology used in the survey. To make sure we are on the same page, can you explain the methodology used in the survey/analysis and clearly describe your objections?

There is a consensus among editors (as pointed out by Jay Hodec), consensus among independent news media (some of which have a liberal bias, and a South Korean news site with a conservative / right-wing bias), experts identifying the party as far-right, and consensus among voters identifying the party as right-wing to far-right. The major contrary evidence being directly from the Fidesz party. For this reason, I am going to change the article to Right-Wing to Far-Right. The burden-of-proof is no longer on me / the other editors. It is now a matter of others to find countervailing evidence - contemporary experts and voters who do not identify Fidesz as right-wing to far-right.

-MWKwiki (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MWKwiki,

- Far-right views include as well Anti-Semitism and anti-Roma sentiments, support of Nazi and racial ideologies, as this is wholly or partially the charachter of the far-right, as well historically, thus in that metric between 6-10 these qualifiers should increase and at then it should end around Nazism.

- But your argument earlier you concluded in ina way that the so-called shift of far-right supporters have been transferred from Jobbik to Fidesz, now you argue that Jobbik supporters who support others parties would not increase teh far-right factor of those parties, but just a united opposition? Like this, also the other supporters who left the party may be considered chosing Fidesz because of he united opposition again the left-side parties....

-Anyway, you should give explanations since we are deep in the subject and we have to carefully evaluate the accuracy of the analysis.

-So again, trying ot be shorter, just because of some voters are judged to be far-right because they left a far-right party and chose and other party they would volte, according to your deduction why would imply that the new party would became then far-right? Because above, you denied this if they chose left-side parties, but if they chose Fidesz...don't you see the contradiction?

- There is no consensus between editors, just a few, I don't know which "experts" identify the party as far-right. You should not make any change until the end of the discussion without building new consensus and you should give a time also to others to express they points, since into this discussion only those circle have been pinged who are supporting one side.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

However, the sources you presented does not qualify the party's ideology to be far-right. Just one quote: It must be remembered that these are self-placements on the scale, meaning that respondents identify themselves in this way (as opposed to being labelled by an external source).. The article is making speculations of voters, but it has no connection to the party's ideology.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

I am growing exasperated of this discussion.

On anti-Semitism, this is associated with Nazism. Nazism is a far-right ideology. Nazism implies far-right. Far-right does not necessarily imply Nazism. Fidesz being far-right does not mean it is a neo-nazi party. Moreover, Fidesz has been called anti-Semitic for its Soros conspiracies.

Jobbik and the position of the left-wing opposition parties is irrelevant to the placement of the Fidesz party on the ideological spectrum. I don't care to argue this point.

The level of evidence required to prove this claim has become extraordinarily high. What evidence is required to confirm the claim that Fidesz is right-wing to far-right?

"So again, trying ot be shorter, just because of some voters are judged to be far-right because they left a far-right party and chose and other party they would volte, according to your deduction why would imply that the new party would became then far-right? Because above, you denied this if they chose left-side parties, but if they chose Fidesz...don't you see the contradiction?" Voters have become more right-wing in their views. It is irrelevant who has joined or left the party. Voters have identified Fidesz as becoming more right-wing. Please read the openDemocracy article.

There is a consensus between editors, (@Jay Hodec: @Kocka78: @MWKwiki: @2600:1700:ec50:b070:2c2:c6ff:fe3e:571a: @WyGolf: @삭은사과: @Blue-Haired Lawyer: @Jeff6045:) vs (KIENGIR and New00100). The experts' views are valid - I have verified their credentials; you can independently do that too. To call them "experts" is an enormous disservice to them and sets an unbelievably high standard.

"The article is making speculations of voters, but it has no connection to the party's ideology." There is no speculation going on. Please read the analysis.

-MWKwiki (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MWKwiki,

I am growing exasperated of this discussion -> you should remain calm at any means.

- Nazism is just one example, but in the spectrum of far right the more far you go, you necessarily touch wholly or partially or end up like so, to the core of far-right ideologies that include extremes views including heavy racism based on Anti-Semitism and similar. The Israeli-goverment defended Fidesz and Soros was not tried because of his origin/religion, what his activity regarding some other matters.

-Excuse me, you argued on the shift of the Jobbik voters and implied something becuase of it, but seems at only one direction.

-How you may see commensurable the far-right deisgnation fo a party the declared zero-tolerance on Anti-Semitism are in alliance with Roma people (having prominent Roma members and MEP, as well Jewish ones), banned all far-right marching and activities of such organizations, introduced the first the Holocaust commemoration Day, etc. Do you understand what "far-right" really means or designates? Read ideologies about Nazism, Hungarism, i.e.? Fidesz would be far-right because he does not support mass-migration and a have a different concept than the European United States? At the time Hungary in the past years granted status for around 12 000 people who wehe refugges/migrants but they legally went through to the reception process?

-Voters have become more right-wing in their views. -> It has no connection to the party's ideology. Voters have identified Fidesz as becoming more right-wing.-> Voters would decide the party's ideology? Why don't you put these stuff in the ideology and policies section?

- I have to inform you "@WyGolf:" is a sockpuppet...did you read WP:CONSENSUS, that all the participants have to agree in order to build that? Did you realize only editors supporting one side have been pinged into this discussion, do you think it's fair and neutral? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Your comments are becoming frighteningly hard to read. Please spend more than 5 seconds writing an indecipherable response. It's a chore figuring out what you're trying to say!

"Voters would decide the party's ideology? Why don't you put these stuff in the ideology and policies section?" I never said that voters decide a party's ideology. I said that voters can accurately place a party on a left-right spectrum. Please read the Oxford article I cited. I have not once said that voters decide political ideology. In fact, most voters do not have a sophisticated framework to assess or identify ideology. Despite this, voters are capable of correctly identifying a party's position on the left-right spectrum. This is well understood in political science. Moreover, experts are in agreement with the voters' identification.

Let's now wait for the other editors to respond. We may need to submit a Dispute Resolution Request if there is still disagreement.

-MWKwiki (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will spend more time to phrase my sentences, but also others should follow wikietiquette that in a serious discussion we DON'T make instant modifications in the middle of it, but ultimately respect WP:BRD. On the other hand, still how especially voters perpestive determine the party's ideology? Their stance is just an assessment, point of view, while the party can declare his own views or their actions would qualify it is as well. To the others who will join the discussion: the debate is not about that the any sources presented by others, or by MWKwiki could not be presented the article, the question is WHERE. Currently you may add anything you presented here into the Ideologies and policies or Criticism and Controversies section.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

@MWKwiki "This was rightfully contested by KIENGIR, as these sources have a liberal bias, and are disputed by the Fidesz party. [...] Hence, without relying on disputed liberal-biased media sources [...]" Almost every report of impropriety/negative description is denied or disputed by those political forces accused. It is also problematic when we begin ascribing political bias to media organisations and then concluding all coverage must be contaminated and is thus unreliable. One could just as soon argue that e.g. the New York Times has a rightward bias, citing everything from the erroneous reporting on the WMDs in the runup to the Iraq War, to the erroneous report regarding the burning of the aid trucks in Venezuela, to the incident where an editor made an article about Bernie Sanders' policy achievements more negative after publication. A similar recent example is Washington Post's "fact check" about Sanders' healthcare claim that declared it completely false despite it being based on a conservative estimate by a scholar that was published in a peer-reviewed journal. We all understand that media is not always correct, and not even objective and unbiased. However, as I have pointed out before, by this metric, all critical reports in US media about the Soviet Union would have to be disregarded in favour of - or at least presented as equally autoritative - as denials in Pravda and Izvestia. The bottom line is that these media organisations are widely regarded as trustworthy in their investigative reporting, and any accusations of systemic and/or purposeful false reporting should be regarded as highly suspicious, with the immense burden of proof on the accuser. "[...] and only considering expert and voter views [...]" I'm sure there are those that would dispute the veracity of these reports also ...

"I do believe that party ideology (infobox) are decided by the party and it's members." I can't think of any major political party that self-identifies as far-right. We must therefore rely on prevailing opinion from sources generally regarded as trustworthy and reliable.

@KIENGIR You seem to be very confident in your ability to discern what is objective fact and what is not. I find it difficult to argue with people who are certain that they command the ultimate truth about reality. Everyone knows that the world is a complicated place, and that there are almost always conflicting data and interpretations of these data. Truth is hard. Take your example. If you send me a picture of an orange you may be confident that it's "orange" and only orange. But what if someone else looking at it is colour blind? What if he's high on acid? What if we examine the image very closely and find it is actually made up of minuscule red and green dots?

I hope more editors weigh in on both sides (though I hope with concise statements). If we are unable to arive at a prevailing consensus (this does not mean unanimity, as per Wikipedia:Consensus), we can request outside help or declare a vote.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay,

to your fisrt pharagraph you adressed to MWKwiki: that's why we don't generalize issues but check one-by one every case, as they are particular. In every corner of the world, some issues of weight, evaluation, tradition and sensitiviy may differ. Hence every instant we have to properly draw and summarize sources given due, weight, accuracy, etc. and evalute and finally place them properly. The world does not have just two poles or just two opposing sides. You don't have to worry that because of the case Fidesz something will affect Venezuela, Puerto Rico or Macau, or any influence/precedence, because WP is not generalizing in this way, every topic, article has it's own scope and the indiviual possibility to reach the best, appropriate form.

second: I agree with "from sources generally regarded as trustworthy and reliable", but also properly identify and summarize their content and place them in the appropriate section, giving no chance of harming neutrality and converge to the most factual approach possible. The qualifiers of trustworthy and reliable should also hold to the content, even generally on some more complex subjects.

Jay, yes this is my particular identity, devotion and profession (but I don't say I'd know any ultimate truth, unless it is not proved or would not be a fact), since always, I really like facts and dislike the opposite, and well I am a precisity/accuracy enthusiast as well. I've always hated manipulation or bad aim twisting, shall anyone the subject. The most hurting for me if I am accused to be favor any side or questioning my good faith and neutraily, although I am an easily decipherable spcecimen, almost like a machine. This anyone who will know me properly in time not really will surpise on me and may expect the same, shall anything be the subject. If anyone would be color blind/or acid would be high, that has to be indicated and discussed finding the best (accuarate, factual) solution. The target is to interpolate maximum accuracy possible, as you may read on my personal page.

Yes we should wait others to chime in as well. If in a considerable time it won't happen anyway I'll as well invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary). In case we still could not agree on something final, then we may consider outside help or any aother arbitration possible. Give it a time, I think approx. after maximum two weeks there is not an entire solution, then we should use the latter mentioned tools. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

As noted, Fidesz espouses some views regarded as part of the far-right spectrum, but is classically right-wing in others. One could argue whether it is adequately extreme for it to be pervailingly far-right, however, at this point, were discussing the right-wing to far-right designation, though this may be shifted either way in the future if the party moves or cements itself in either position. Let me just reiterate that this designation is already used for all comparable political parties I can think of.

Antisemitism and antiziganism are certainly components of some far-right ideologies, but these are not prerequisites. Furthermore, Nazism is not the only flavour of far-rightism. The far-right is often also characterised by hostility to ethnic, religious, ideological, and cultural pluralism, historical revisionism, ultranationalism/ethnonationalism, authoritarianism, hostility to democratic institutions, etc. All these are made manifest both in rethoric and policy by the Fidesz government, therefore warranting a "... to far-right" designation, at least. It should also be noted that even if antisemitic and antiziganic policies are not made explicit, these can be put in place implicitly through promotion of a pure ethnic state, either through indoctrination/compulsive and intrusive state ideology, suppression of independent cultural or religious institutions, constriction of minority rights, etc.

I would agree that voter opinion is not definitive (sometimes e.g. left-wing candidates have right-wing support due to a certain policy position they feel strongly about, or due to tactical reasons (take the example of Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang in the US Democratic primary)), but can certainly be suggestive.

I pinged the aforementioned users because all had independently attempted to change the designation, but had been told that prevailing editor consensus had already been established against this (which I find not to be the case). They had not been encouraged to discuss this on the talk page, and may have relented due to a mistaken belief the issue is already settled due to an ethos argument from opposing editors. I'm hesitant to ping New00100 due to his consistent flaunting of decorum and harsh rhetoric which likely violates several Wiki guidelines and may have already warranted administrative sanctions.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my quarrel with MWKwiki. The issue is that the Fidesz government has reportedly almost entirely subsumed the media in Hungary. Therefore, it may be necessary to almost entirely rely on foreign sources for objective reporting about the state of the Hungarian politics. All this is of course denied by the Hungarian government who argue that outside media should not be trusted since they either misunderstand its internal affairs, are swindled by the internal opposition, or are themselves biased. Which may be true, or, more likely, just a crafty slight of hand which has rich precedence with authoritarian governments (again, communist states would never admit that internal media were entirely subservient to the state in their reporting). Relying on pro-government media or party member statements is thus inherently problematic if done in an attempt to achieve NPOV.

I think I've never accused you of of bias or ulterior motives, and in fact do not have reason to believe your edits are motivated in any such fashion. However, I do think some of your stances are not based on correct/factual assessments, even if held in good faith.

I do not think it wise that editors invite other new outside editors to comment individually. If editors that have hitherto participated in the dispute cannot arrive at agreement, I think it proper to seek outside council through the proper "official" channels.

Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay, you make a very good point on media sources. My aim was not to claim they are useless or untrustworthy, just that the sources are disputed and I wanted to present what is more 'objective' evidence.

It seems that editors are arguing over what defines 'far-right'. However, we are not experts. It is not our role to define what 'far-right' is or is not. KIENGIR, you cannot accept the expert identification of Fidesz as a very populist party, but reject their identification of it being far-right. You don't get to accept one and dismiss the other out-of-hand. That's not how this works.

There are real experts who have - Yes, they are real experts. Check their qualifications rather than just dismissing them because they don't confirm your views. There are real experts who place Fidesz as far-right. That is an indisputable fact.

We should also rely on expert-analysis. Ideology and placement on the political spectrum are different things - read the damn Oxford article I cited. I provided evidence that voters - who voted for the Fidesz party in this analysis - have identified it as more far-right. This is further evidence to support the claim that the party has moved right. Voter identification of party political position is a well-established means of determining party alignment - yes it is, did you read the Oxford article?

KIENGIR, it is not your role to dismiss these experts and the expert-analysis. It is not your role to argue for your own definition of 'far-right', nor is it my role or Jay's role. It is determining what a variety of sources claim. In this case, media sources, experts, and voters all agree that the party has moved right, and that Fidesz can be identified as far-right. Not your or my definition of 'far-right' - no one cares how we are defining 'far-right'.

-MWKwiki (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe internationally respected journalistic organisations are objective sources. In this particular case, they would use the label "far right" if they have previously consulted experts or if the designation is widely acknowledged as accurate. It is important to note that all articles go through an editorial process to ensure all information contained within is fitting.

As you've seen, the issue is not that the use of the term is disputed because of a disagreement over the inherent trustworthiness of one type of source over another that can simply be remedied by presenting more evidence/other types of evidence to surpass the burden of proof, but due to disagreement about beliefs regarding what the term itself means and whether anyone that uses it to describe Fidesz can be trustworthy. This is a fundamentally different disagreement. This brings us back to the Soviet example I gave; it is important to point out that the arguments advanced by opponents of the designation are inherently fallacious/disingenuous. The burden of proof set is impossible to surpass because it is uniquely high (and, in my opinion, unjustifiably so) compared to all comparable instances I can think off, basically non-existent. Ceding this point is a disservice to our argument, since it implicitly acknowledges that media sources are inherently less reliable; if this hold, most information contained in the article can be brought under question. Because the same arguments that have already been made while arguing against the media sources could apply to scholarly sources:

  "The problem is all of these trials are coming from only those news and media concerns, individuals who in the past eight years as well attacked Fidesz and the Hungarian Government, many times with groundless or exaggerated accusations with a huge double measure comparing to other states where the same or worse happened, but just because they did not share conservative right-wing views and disagreed on more high-level political questions, they were not attacked at the same manner."

  "Sorry, the problem is regardless some media goups are officially regarded "independent", there are those groups who consistently attacking/labeling/accusing the party with some designations that does not hold (regardless what it is, if there is a chance it is done, even if the epithes are varying...mostly the left side and media groups nationally/internationally who traditionally criticizing and labeling right wing parties, or their policies (even if the right/left designation in some other countries have no interpretation based on different political heritage, but the direction and idea have common directions)...Hungary and it's government is recently a target mainly beucase of it's anti-immigration policy and opposition to the some European policies (European United States vs. Federalism of strong national states, etc. in scope of the forthcoming European Parlamentiary Elections). Fidesz factually has no connection to any far-right agenda, not even commited such. Thus such opinons may only represented as an opinion of some circles." - KIENGIR

  "[...] the opponents of the governing party make every effort to maintain defamation, thus every such attempts should be reverted, Wikipedia cannot be the battleground of the recent pre-election campaigns, shall it be Fidesz or any other party." - KIENGIR

So, in short, the domestic political opposition is attempting to besmirch Fidesz with such accusations, and outside media and experts either buy into the anti-Fidesz propaganda due to a lack of knowledge about the country, are in cahoots with the domestic opposition, or their opposition is inherently ideological in nature. The argument can apply to any domestic or foreign "expert" just as soon, and before you know it, we'll be talking about whether the experts may harbour political views at odds with Fidesz. It must be rejected outright.

Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yes. Thank you, Jay. I agree.

Let our position be this: the consensus among media outlets, plus arguments from experts and expert-analysis, should be the determining factor of the party's political position. In this case, media outlets have independently described the party as far-right, there are experts that identify Fidesz as far-right, and lastly voter surveys increasingly identify the party as far-right, on a level comparable to the far-right Jobbik party.

The position of KIENGIR, to my understanding, is that 'far-right' implies anti-semitism and Nazism, and that the Fidesz party is not a Nazi party, so is not 'far-right'. Moreover, we cannot trust independent media sources, as they are biased. We cannot trust "experts" and it is irrelevant as to how voters place Fidesz (or other parties) on the political spectrum.

To solve this disagreement, KIENGIR proposes that we, "invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary)." To me, this is equivalent to saying, "I will not accept any outside sources or experts. I want trustworthy Wikipedia editors who understand the Hungarian political context to determine this."

To me, this resolution is nonsensical. The trustworthiness of an expert or source is irrelevant as to whether they are a Wikipedia editor or not. It is a genetic fallacy and a form of moving the goalposts. A kind of "nuh-uh, your experts are bad and I can't be bothered to verify them or do research myself. Your media sources and voter analysis is irrelevant too. Let's wait for Wikipedia experts (who are somehow more authoritative/reliable?) to take notice and chip in." The obvious rebuttal is this: if you are going to dismiss our evidence/sources, why should we not dismiss yours?

-MWKwiki (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur.

BTW, a relevant bit of information regarding far-right voter share may be the following: Orban courts far-right voters ahead of 2018 vote (Reuters).

I had the same thought about KIENGIR's suggestion. I don't find there to be a dearth of English-language sources on the topic, or that Hungarian ones would be any more reliable. Anecdotal expertise cannot be relevant in wiki if it cannot be followed up by tangible sources.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It is very funny that KIENGIR opposes foreign media's sources, that describe the party is far-right due to their lack of understanding of hungarian politics. But actually temporay sources on wikipedia that describes Fidesz as right-wing are all from foreign media.(The Economist:UK, The world and all its voices: France, news.com.au: Australia). In addition I think quoting hungary's media to describe Fidesz's political spectrum is ridiculous. The media in hungary is obviously divided whether they support Fidiesz or not. We can not expect rational sources from them. I think the best reliable sources would be foreign media which is not from western country.(such as Al Jazeera) (talk)Jeff6045 06:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I will respond to everybody, however since a lot of comments cumulated, will quote the respective issue/pharagraph to besure what I am reacting to:

The issue is that the Fidesz government has reportedly almost entirely subsumed the media in Hungary. -> Entirely false, the left-oriented/run media prevailed traditionally in Hungary around 70%-80%, nowadays the right oriented media arrived near to 50%, thus it may be treated near equal. Jay's conclusion is again drawn from distibuted and twisted info, that would identify the right-oriented media's expansion as a complete "subsume", although it it just relevantly expanded but did not reach majority. Hence Jay's conlclusion is entirely false (Therefore, it may be necessary to almost entirely rely on foreign sources for objective reporting about the state of the Hungarian politics.), since with this practically he wishes to completely exclude Hungarian sources, that is a serious NPOV violation, on the other hand a full stigmatization of an entire nation (an he's coming recurrently with "Soviet" examples)...

ll this is of course denied by the Hungarian government who argue that outside media should not be trusted since they either misunderstand its internal affairs, are swindled by the internal opposition, or are themselves biased. -> Nope, the government does not deny the expansion, but of course it is fake they would control everything, since the so-called oppositon media, radio, press, televison are exact, measurable along with their audience. Jay, believing his argumentation to be true and fair, makes again a conclusion with that he again makes controversial and stigmatizing analogies -> (again, communist states would never admit that internal media were entirely subservient to the state in their reporting)...Such things are not good, if you start any argumentation from a biased premise, of course, as I experienced many times, you don't have all the necessary information, hence we are discussing, that's why I told you you should be much more entirely research the situation on your own, really neutrally and you cannot ignore any side regarding this, since this is the fundamentum of objectivity.

I do think some of your stances are not based on correct/factual assessments -> You may think anything that you want, I disagree, facts talk, I described my philosophy above - i don't repeat it - my correctness may not any means questioned.

do not think it wise that editors invite other new outside editors to comment individually. If editors that have hitherto participated in the dispute cannot arrive at agreement, I think it proper to seek outside council through the proper "official" channels. -> Again a serious NPOV violation, that I am amazed, as in the earlier case from Jay, since after he pinged in all the editors supporting his stance (even a sockpuppet!!) (and just and only those, ignoring the others who as well particpated but not on his support) on this issue, he is against pinging in editors that are neutral...my jaws falling down!

MWKwiki experts cannot be biased -> nominally not, however there may be some. I checked the Oxford article, your deduction of the far-right is considerable, however it means in a way the complete re-definiton of the meaning, since especially what we associate with it, implies my description and that interesting (?) situation may follow that such parties are put on a whole or partial common platform, that anyway largely differ in an intastisbfiable manner from each other on mainstream ideologies, that I treat dangerous, since opposing sides often accuse each other with weird and overexaggerated accusations trying to identify to the other party off-color.

To solve this disagreement, KIENGIR proposes that we, "invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary)." To me, this is equivalent to saying, "I will not accept any outside sources or experts. I want trustworthy Wikipedia editors who understand the Hungarian political context to determine this." -> A ardent example of a huge logical fallacy of yours, since I never said that I would not accept any outside sources or experts, I kindly ask you that do not make such amaterurish statements because it is really on the edge of defamation in a negative manner, on the other hand, if you wish to exclude/reject editors who are understanding and knowing at first hand that outsiders may not would be again a serious NPOV violation, that with a good faith I could only assume of lack of DR experience...regarding this on the other hand, the same would stand like I told to Jay in this manner

Let's wait for Wikipedia experts (who are somehow more authoritative/reliable?) to take notice and chip in." The obvious rebuttal is this: if you are going to dismiss our evidence/sources, why should we not dismiss yours? -> I did not say experts, please read back what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth I did not say in the future, thank you. Again a huge logical fallacy, since what you claim has not any connection of the premise, neither the rebuttal ot it, furthermore I did not dismiss your sources, I told particularly if in every instant if there was a problem or not, the rest reaction would be the same like the earlier pharagraph.

Not citing because it was the last entry, answer to Jeff:

I do not consider very funny your comments, deductions that are failing the necessary neutrality, on the other hand your recent activity raise concerns also other places. If you wish to dismiss any Hungarian source e.g., it is again the same serious NPOV violation mentioned earlier, while you contradict yourself on your next sentence, when you admit the stance are divided, however you are in a stigmatizing way exclude the possibility of any fair source, that is utterly not the case. Also everyone have to see in a way Russell's teapot, or that entirely relying on foreign things on an issue is not the best approach, since we cannot dismiss anything inside, because we immediately harm the neutrality. If I check a foreign source and a Hungarian next to it, I may be more balanced and near to the reality than if not, but this is is true for any field of science, shall anyone to be the subject. However what is the most important for all you, that still it seems you wish to deteriorate the attention that I did not oppose any sources and their information to be present at this page, the debate is abut WHERE and HOW they are presented (and this is not the first time I have to repeat it.).(KIENGIR (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Can someone open up an RfC on the Politics, government and law board? Or ask an editor who knows how to? I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's procedures.

-MWKwiki (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

MWKwiki, please adhere to our earlier point, give some time for other editors who may join the discussion, after a considerable time it did not happen, we may go in this direction. I still intend to wait a few days before any invitation of any editor.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

I too would like other editors to join the discussion. Your opposition to creating an RfC is that it would... let editors join the discussion? We already tried seeking a third opinion. The next step is to seek community input, because even if a week passes and the "other editors" stumble over this, I don't think it's going to resolve the dispute. We should open an RfC now... or are we seriously going to have a dispute over this too? -MWKwiki (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

MWKwiki, as I recall your (plural) point was that at first glance any editors should join on voluntary purpose without any WP procedure of seeking third party involvement. I have no opposition to and RFC generally, but the question is when?

We already tried seeking a third opinion -> when, how?

FYI, some issues are solved in months, however, I just predicted a shorter time, but it may seem to rush like you'd avoid further discussion. You should not worry, your points will not loose or anyone's. In my opinion then, let's give around three days if others join, if not I'll invite a few (less then it has been pinged earlier by Jay), we give again a time to discuss, and after I think there is no problem to have any 3O or anything. Maybe it would not be even needed, beucase already we have settled things (shall the end result favor anyone's standpoint).(KIENGIR (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

So I'm guessing that excluding pro-government North Korean media sources when seeking info on the North Korean government is a grave "NPOV" violation, not to mention a great slight to the noble North Korean people. I'm also guessing that domestic dissidents/critics are furthermore not to be trusted as their are politically/ideologically motivated by their burning animus against Fidesz.

The Fidesz government's influence over national media (and, in fact, some media organisation in Slovenia, North Macedonia, etc.) has been widely documented and is acknowledged by almost every serious entity not supportive or allied with Fidesz. If you choose to contest this point and continue to insist all reports of media interference by the Hungarian government are fiction, I cannot regard you as a serious, legitimate interlocutor any longer.

"[...] my correctness may not any means questioned." Oh, alright then. At least you're modest. I don't really see a point in discussing this any further with you if you declare beforehand that you think we're all wrong and you can never be proven wrong ever.

As said before, I pinged the editors who independently attempted to change the party orientation but were rebuffed authoritatively by New00100 and yourself despite all citing letitimate sources as far as I remember. After reverting ~8 editors, you can hardly claim there is consensus, especially when it was bludgeoned through by only two editors with questionable arguments (note, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.", and also note Wikipedia:Reliable sources). I did not ping New00100 because, frankly, I have a feeling I would just get called a commie "cuck". Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure New00100 broke several ban-worthy Wikipedia guidelines. I also find it problematic that you took issue with my Soviet propaganda analogy to such a degree that you felt the need to report me, but did not find fault with New00100 calling people "hysterical leftists & their far-leftists friends [...] Communists Socialists [...] lying [...], crying, bitching [...] immature kids [...] [spamming] their shit propaganda". You also failed to note that my analogy, though admittedly forceful, was a response to New00100's rethoric also.

Since no other editors were active in reverting the infobox edits or participated in the given discussion (as far as I know), I did not ping anyone else. However, if you'd like, you can also ping editors from the Political position section, though I'm confident most will concur with the "right-wing to far-right" designation.

But, anyway, I don't really see your objection to filing a request for comment. Are you saying that the outside experts you wish to bring in would be a counterweight to my supposed biased pinging? Why not just ping the editors I ostensibly neglected to ping because they disagreed with my position?

"[...] if you wish to exclude/reject editors who are understanding and knowing at first hand that outsiders may not [...]" I ask you again - are you saing that English-language sources are insufficient to ascertain whether the right-wing to far-right designation applies? If not, why would you need Hungarian "insiders"? All unreferenced claims would be moot so the only sensible way I can interpret this statement is that you'd need editors with a grasp of the Hungarian language to comb through the sources.

I'm positive we would not reject authoritative Hungarian sources. However, if such sources are known to be pro-government, it would necessarily be tainted and its content considered dubious at best on this issue. However, I have a feeling you would conversely reject all non-government sources as biased against the government. I must however point out that New00100 and yourself have used a government spokesperson as source [1][2][3], so I'm not really sure you command a firm grasp as to what would constitute an objective Hungarian source in this instance.

Regards. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay,

- I have to utterly decline and disavow any kind of comparison with North Korea, that is part of top insane comments and comparisions ever heard....please refrain yourself with your recurrent and unprofessional comparisons, as pointed out earlier!

- Straw-man argumentation of Jay -> I did not deny the media expansion and influence, but it is not complete or overbalanced in one direction on the whole, see the approx. percentages. Please read properly my sentences and do not speculate with them, neither twist them in the future. Thank You! (After such I could as well say I cannot regard you as a serious, legitimate interlocutor any longer...but I adhere to WP:AAGF and won't do that)

- At least you're modest -> I am honest.

- if you declare beforehand that you think we're all wrong and you can never be proven wrong ever. -> I warn you this may raise another civility issue because it is a serious defamation, I never said such. Please, refrain yourself from addressing me sentences I never said!

- I never asked you to ping New00100 in this discussion, I would not even do that. I just told you about in the ANI board that you have an obligation to do, reinforced by others (as far as I know you still ignored it)

- Well, nevertheless, you may admit your pings were quite restricted, you ignored as well other who touched the issue in the talk in a way or approached it.

- But, anyway, I don't really see your objection to filing a request for comment. Are you saying that the outside experts you wish to bring in would be a counterweight to my supposed biased pinging? Why not just ping the editors I ostensibly neglected to ping because they disagreed with my position? -> I have to assume you again misinterpreted my answer to earlier, please read accurately and precisely my sentences that you heavily failed also in this response...BTW if i would to ping because they disagreed with your position I would harm neutrality, did you think about this, hmm?

- are you saing that English-language sources are insufficient to ascertain whether the right-wing to far-right designation applies -> Again read back what I said if it is still not clear. There are both sides sources that may be accurate or not, shall it come from English, Hungarian, Arab, Punjabi, etc.

- I have a feeling you would conversely reject all non-government sources as biased against the government. -> prejudicative feeling, please try to avoid personal issues (again). I don't care where the source is coming from, I care about the content, shall it be govenrmental, non-governmental or Eskimo.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

"the question is when [to open an RfC]?" Now.

There is a 2-1 majority to open the discussion to more editors. I assume everyone here agrees that we are not making any progress in this dispute? KIENGIR, refusing to allow an RfC is basically a filibuster. We are trying to move the discussion along, and that involves opening up to other editors. I am becoming doubtful whether you are still acting in good faith, or do not realise how much of an obstruction you are being to us continuing the discussion. Please let us make an RfC to allow other editors to comment.

-MWKwiki (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

MWKwiki,

refusing to allow an RfC is basically a filibuster. -> I kindly ask you to avoid defamation (again). I never said such, we discussed the necessity over time, I said I have no opposition to and RFC generally

Btw, I find quite problematic that increasingly my sentences are evidently twisted, I could tell as well to you this time if it would be doubtful whether you are still acting in good faith or just having ad hominem speculation towards me to identify me in a negative manner. I never rejected anytime other editors comments, on the countrary, we discussed in which phase and how they should join in. And as well, you ignored to answer my question.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

I'm starting to think you don't know how comparisons work since you take issue with the fact that I'm drawing comparisons between things that are not the same.

You can read about the extent of the media influence in the article corresponding to the talk page.

You just said that the veracity of your statements is undisputable. This necessarily implies that all that disagree with you are wrong.

You took issue with my statement that referred just as much to New00100 as it did to you. So it was actually you who involved New00100, I just pointed it out. The guideline says "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors." I think the duty would have fallen on you.

My pings were limited to editors who were rebuffed by New00100 and you based on ostensible consensus apparently reached in this subsection. Again, if you feel I neglected to ping anyone else involved, you're free to do so.

I don't think it worthwhile to respond to the rest. I was hesitant to say this, but I have trouble understanding a lot of what you say due to poor syntax. I often have to guess what you're even trying to say, and than try to guess why I ostensibly misrepresented what you said. This is no way to carry on a discussion. I hope we can file a request for comment ASAP and get this over with.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

While we're at it, since many articles that designate parties as right-wing to far-right in infoboxes also do so in the lede, I would just ask any editor participating in the discussion to just state his/her stance on including it there also (especially if we arrive at a vote at some point).

P.S.: KIENGIR, please, pretty please, stop accusing us of slights to your character. This is a difficult discussion, and it's made even more difficult by your scrutinising every reply for wrongs against your honour, especially since you levy similar accusations/complaints against us.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay,

- I'm starting to think you don't know how comparisons work since you take issue with the fact that I'm drawing comparisons between things that are not the same.-> If you seriously consider that North Korea and Hungary could by any means compared in the context you are referring, I don't even say what I could have started to think...the key is the level and degree of comparison, grass is also growing there and people are homo sapiens on the power on two, like in the majority of other countries, but regarding political affairs and related Hungary may be one of the last ones of the candidates, if we wish to remain on solid ground and not fantasyzing on the colonization of Neptune in less then two weeks.

- Nope, I did not mention the editor, thus there was not duty on me. (Mentioning means to descibe his name.)

-This necessarily implies that all that disagree with you are wrong. -> this is a too much generalized implication, we discuss on special details, decomponating things to their evidential base.

- As I said, unless you not explicitly wish this earlier, I'd ping some other after a few days.

- Excuse me if my English grammar make you troubles, I try to be always the best possible. Such cases you should point out first what you don't understand properly, before commenting on it. Just because I express I am mispresented, it should not hurt you, suprisingly, I did commit similar such, although I am not a native English speaker. Seems again you don't wish to discuss, I would never ever reject any discussion with you, as this is as well a form of respect.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Addendum to your P.S., that I missed:

Sorry, I did not make such accusations towards you or anyone that would rely on personal grounds, neither twisting your sentences or give anything to you that you did not say. Yes, it is a dificult discussion, but it does not make me not to read carefully, analyze and an interpret anyone's sentences in an precise manner also with the necessary logics and consistency in such a hard talk, with avoiding such phenomenos that happened to me or hat I have said. All of you should utterly avoid any personal direction.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Yes, cite just half of a paragraph that neglects the fact the statement was referring to muliple persons and than insist that you don't have the duty to notify because you didn't technically mention him/her. Very crafty. However, if you read the guideline carefully, it does not mandate it, and nowhere says they have to be named, but only "involved". And even so, New00100 was first mentioned by another editor who quoted the first half of the paragraph, so ... Well, frankly, I think this is neither here nor there, really.

"[...] my correctness may not any means questioned." I'll let your words speak for themselves.

For the n-th time, ping any editors involved that you think I neglected to mentioned, but I don't think it proper you "[...] as well invite a few editors (without knowing their political stance, but knowing they are familiar first hand regarding the internal affairs of Hungary)".

Look, you make a lot of statements that can as soon be interpreted as character attacks. Saying my comments are "insane", "unprofessional", just to list some recent example, could just as soon be construed as defamation/misrepresentation/bad faith/personal attacks etc. Short of direct insults, lets just drop analysis of what is proper and what is not, and stick to bare arguments for the sake of conciseness.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

- Yes, technically you may argue he was mentioned by another editor, but he is a third part who gives opnion, not involved the original root cause, but you explicity cite him with a name, indeed.

- Can you prove I was not correct at any time, or did not intend to be??

- Ok, will do that shortly.

- Excuse me, charachter attack is not equal if I respond to fallacious statements or any injust designation of my person or intentions, since I comment on what is described, not on the editor personally, however I may ask the editor avoid improper or problematic descriptions that would be a charachter attack (sic!), that anyway mostly I suffered. Judging a way of argumentation or decription is as well do not fell in that category for a certain point. If I considered a comment of comparison insane and I did not judge you insane, if I consider something unprofessional and do not consider you unprofessional, but something of the presentation of the subject. If in an article with mathematics, somebody would describe a fallacious or debatable equation, if I judge it with qualifiers, would it be troublesome? Maybe if someone by mistake conclude to his person when it is not the case. But you now what, in this discussion I will avoid these two words per your request.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

"Can you prove I was not correct at any time, or did not intend to be??" That's what we've been doing this whole time. There is a big difference between being correct and trying to be correct. Your former statement referred to the former.

And you may consider my statement insulting but not myself personally. And the Catholics hate the sin, and not the homosexual. Look, this discussion is already reaching the word count of a brief novella, I just don't want to be getting further bogged down about discussion whether evoking one or another regime with a problematic media freedom record is a personal insult and what interpretation of your statements constitutes defamation.

Look, I don't think this conversation is moving anywhere. Let's just end here and wait for opinions by other editors, either any with previous involvement in this issue, or those attracted through a RfC.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, let's end here now I invite the editors you asked first, I was already composing the invitation meanwhile your comment, give me a few minutes, Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

@Norden1990:, :@Fakirbakir:, :@Koertefa:, :@Borsoka:, :@Kapeter77:,

please join the discussion and share your opinions about the subject.

(disclaimer): this invitation is based on a former agreement, as per another user earlier pinged in other users supporting his standpoint in this debate. At a point of our discussion we agreed to involve other editors as well, nevertheless without immediately a third party abitration at first glance. In my behalf I offered editors who are dealing with first hand experience regarding Hungary, but not any means I know anything about in detail their party preference/current poltical views, etc., hence this is not by any means may be interpreted that I would wish to support my opinion/standpoint, just to have a fresh input that maybe would help us to completely resolve the issue:

The debate is about whether or not it is fair to change in the infobox the ideology section from Right wing to Right wing to far-right. One side of the arguments say since many foreign RS qualifies the party like so, it should be, however the opposing arguments say there is nevertheless such sources, but in reality we have to count in there is a significant phemomenon the accuracy of these sources are debated in many ways, as the root cause would be the disagreement between several recent political stances like anti-immigration/not supporting the concept of European United States etc., thus the heavy critics and labeling of the party occurs in spite of this. The term far-right (Hungarian: szélsőjobboldali) has a quite heavy connotation and designation, especially to Hungarian ears, that has a history in the country, especially having two real far-right parties significantly more right and more extreme scale of the right-wing paletta, having that even the Hungarian opposition parties who are the utmost heavy criticist of Fidesz as well not consider the party like far-right.

Recently we agreed until now that in the top of the Ideology and policies section we put all the sources with extreme critics next to this, but some editors wish to abolish this. The arguments - long debate above, in this section is present (there were several other trials on this question as well in other sections in the talk, this may be as well read to have to whole picture). Thanks for anyone's time and opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

OK, so let me get this strait. Because I informed editors whose legitimate edits designating the party as right-wing to far-right based on reliable sources were reverted that the reason for the reverts appears to have become fallacious, you are now inviting editors that are in no way party to the dispute because they are ... Hungarians? And you don't find this problematic? First off, no one but you thought that this was a good idea.

I do not think your description adequately summarises our discussion; I would encourage anyone taking part in the discussion to read over the admittedly lenghty discussion. I must also point out that reliable sources have described Fidesz as far-right, and that all similar/related parties appear to be designated as right-wing to far-right in the infobox, and often in the lede.

It should be noted that a history of controversial far-right political forces should not proclude a party that is far-right being described as far-right. By that metric, the same objection could be applied for the AfD (NSDAP), Lega Nord/Fratelli d'Italia (Italian fascists), Vox (Falangists), UKIP (Mosley's British Fascists), National Rally (Vichy regime), etc.

Regardless of the opinions of the editors invited by KIENGIR, I would demand a speedy request for comment since this attempt to resolve the dispute is fraught with issues.

We also do not wish to remove the more in-depth examination of the criticisms of extremism by the party from the dedicated section. What is at question here is whether designating the party as ideologically "right-wing to far-right", based on designations by reliable sources, is warranted.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay, if you remember correctly, I invited them (this I also described more times, I think my English is on that level that such may not be misunderstood if your are better than me) because they have first hand knowledge and experience on Hungarian affairs, as a balancing input (contrary to yours, who just invited editors supporting your version, quite problematic you don't see the failed neutrailty on this, but let's not enter again to this clear issue, may read above). On your second pharagraph's first note, we agree I advised the same, even more broad to earlier discussions. Thank you for your addendums, I think it is the time let other editors to manifest, giving them considerable time to analyze this issue. Kind Regards, Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

I will restate our position for changing the political position from "right-wing" to "right-wing to far-right": The consensus among media outlets, plus arguments from experts and expert-analysis, should be the determining factor of the party's political position. In this case, numerous media outlets have independently described the party as far-right, and this list is by no means exhaustive. Moreover, there are experts who identify Fidesz as far-right, and voter surveys which increasingly identify the party as far-right on a level comparable to the far-right Jobbik party. (The expert opinion and analysis I mention also includes the cited news articles, which have contacted experts and sourced them in their own analyses.)

–MWKwiki (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

References

As I have said countless times, if you feel there are opposing editors that are party to the dispute, you are free to invite them. These editors are NOT party to the dispute, to the best of my knowledge.

Again, for the milionth time, "first-hand knowledge" is irrelevant because at the end of the day we have to rely on tangible sources, and not anecdotal wisdom. Do you think there is a paucity of reliable sources to such a degree that only Hungarian-speaking editors can contribute valuable imput?

And again, you appear to be claiming that you did not file a request for comment because you're trying to add balance by apparently inviting editors that will be less favourable to my stance. This is the only way I can interpret your statement. You appear to be admitting that there were no previously involved editors on the other side of the issue to invite. By doing so, you are contaminating the opinions the editors you just invited may express, especially if they agree with your stance - you do realise that, right?

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

- Yes, I think and I explained why. Just see my following answer to MWKwiki.

- Your next pharagraph is again a straw-man alike argumentation filled with speculations. I kindly ask you the to drop these at once. Balance (= NPOV, specific knowlege on special affairs)

-by apparently inviting editors that will be less favourable to my stance. This is the only way I can interpret your statement. -> Speculation, straw-man, twist, again the complete ignorance of the facts that are descibed, since I don't know anything of their political views or stance, but they are surely have more adequate information on Hungarian politics. Again, I kindly ask you the last time to drop negative aimed speculations against me, and remember WP:AAGF.

-:MWKwiki, I just read directly the Hungarian survey you are referred ([4]). Contrary to your earlier analysis above and here, the survey contain a scale index between left-wing and right-wing politics (0-10), not right-wing scale measurement from 0-10.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

I'm glad you finally read it! Although it seems you are now misremembering what I stated. I have never said it is a "right-wing scale measurement from 0-10". I have always said it's a left-right spectrum ranging from 0-10. Fidesz is being increasingly placed as a 9-10 on this spectrum, hence it is increasingly being identified as far-right. MWKwiki (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You see, this is the problematic conlcusion, that is OR. Far-right is not even mentioned by the survey, and the people did not qualify on that manner how far-rightness applies necessarily, but the specific distance between the center and left, or vica versa.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

"[...] because they have first hand knowledge and experience on Hungarian affairs, as a balancing input (contrary to yours, who just invited editors supporting your version [...]" You have been reluctant to endorse a request for comment. You have complained that I only invited editors who agree with me (I already explained my reasoning for whom I pinged) but did not invite any other editors that are party to the dispute you felt should have also been invited, despite being encouraged to do so on several occasions. How else am I supposed to interpret your comment about BALANCING IMPUT CONTRARY to editors SUPPORTING "MY VERSION"???

I'll try not to respond in the future since we're just running in circles. I hope the issue gets resolved speedily. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay, you should calm down, don't you see? You excluded from the pinging an editor that you judged personally not competent, but you as well invited a sock that is twice as more incompetent (not any negative assumes towards you, maybe you instantly copied the addresses and mayble the lack of WP experience, you don't see how problematic was this, regardless of your true intentions that you believe...) Get over it, we all humans who make mistakes, regard it as a technical error, but after this not any means you may critize my invitations and understood properly what balance means since I did NOT invite any editors that supported me in this particular debate (even with Norden19990, we argued on this talk page). Peace with you, and let's give to others the ground, if there is not any specific new reason to respond.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Good god. I pinged all those that were reverted during the last 500 edits after describing the party as far-right in a referenced edit. I do not feel I have the duty to do due dilligence regarding the quality of their edits on other subjects, be they the devil incarnate. And if you of all people can't see how New00100 may have delegitimised himself with his demeaning rhetoric, I may seriously need to begin doubting your impartiality. Even so, I have repeatedly stated you're free to ping any counterparties to the argument you feel have been unfairly left out of the loop.

Just to be clear, I don't think I ever said you know the editors would support you. I'm saying your phrasing made it seem like you selected your cohort in a way as to counter a perceived unfair tilt/advantage of editor opinion in the other direction by currently participating editors (I count myself + 2, which is not many). I have already delineated why I find tihs problematic, especially because of what you chose not to do.

BTW, I use colourful text markup to make my replies more emphatic and dynamic, not to suggest any emotion. I'm calmer than a bottle of high-dose Valium.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but seeming like is excluded here, since I openly and explicity described the purpose, that you misinterpreted by the word "balance". Well, let's make an agreement, from now on, we do not contribute to the talk page for 24 hours until any other editor than three of us won't chime in, otherwise it may seems we don't wish to give them the place. Have a nice day.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC))

Just a comment from the sideline: Do any of you seriously believe that editors will bother to wade through this thread with more than 100K text, where large parts seem to consist of off-topic discussions about editor behaviour interspersed with lots of "I never said that". If you cannot agree about starting a formal RfC (and I fail to understand why), I would suggest that you stop this thread immediately, and then start a new thread at the bottom of the page. There you can state the question you disagree about, followed by a short statement from each of you presenting your view, and then ping all the editors you want to ping. If anyone wants to read this thread, that is fine, but most editors will probably get lost quickly (like I did). Just a thought... --T*U (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Helper,

your eedits are problematic, the party has not such ideology, and never head, we identify on that section the parties open and valid ideologies, not criticism or other politically motivated opinions, which anyway are present in the relevant section of the article, om the other hand your edits touch as well other parts having no consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

I have a section about my edits above. Please include your responses there. Helper201 (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Opening heading

Isn't the building in "Szentkirályi u. 18." their new office building? See Google Adam78 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and lead description

Two separated points I'd like to highlight here. First, authoritarianism is being removed from the infobox without reason despite being supported by multiple citations and there is no consensus not to include it in the infobox.

On the second, separate point, we should not include only one of the two cited political positions in the infobox in the lead. Both right-wing and far-right are cited with multiple citations in the infobox. Either we include both of the cited positions in the lead or neither. To only include one position in the lead gives unnecessary weight to one position over the other. To keep as neutral as possible we should include both cited positions or neither, not give unnecessary and undue weight in any particular direction. Helper201 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your representation is flawed, they were removed by reason, on the other hand you don't seem to understand basic editing policies and how consensus building works. Authoritarianism is a form of government, not a political ideology, and never had the party's ideology, criticism or accusations are already present at the relevant section of the article.

On the second issue, again you don't understand what WP:NPOV means, especially that's why your modification was not supported, since the party is a right-wing party, however there are foreign accusations that is may also include the other spectrum, and if you check other infoboxes, many of them are described in the infobox touching not just one spectrum but more, but the lead is clear and the most neutral regarding this. Since either the modification of the infobox like that never gained consensus, this second issue is anyway voided (anyway right wing covers full spectrum it).(KIENGIR (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Authoritarianism is listed on the page list of political ideologies. If reliable sources say the party is authoritarian, then we should go with that, not doubt it because of our own personal views.

"Foreign accusations". In other words, multiple reliable supporting citations? Just because a source does not originate from the home country of its subject does not make it any less valid. And no, right-wing does not always include the whole spectrum of the right and can be especially misleading if multiple citations specifically call the party far-right, as is the case here. It all depends upon the context in which this is being stated. There are parties that are right-wing and not far-right. According to citations, this is not the case here, as multiple also call the party far-right. Either we should include both positions in the lead or neither. Helper201 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, the fact that Authoritarianism is listed in that article, it does not make it an ideology, but un umbrella term, which is anyway a form of goverment, it has nothing to with my personal views.

As well you misunderstand, it's not about where from the source originates, but we have to avoid stating opinions as facts. Btw. nominally the left-wing spectrum covers all of it as well, and further you may specify some subsets of it. The statement of the various citations are fairly covered by the "right-wing to far-right" designation in the infobox, which is meant for there, as in usual practise for the vast majority of akin articles, since they have naturally more type of decriptions from more sides, but it does not change if fact what the party really is.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

If libertarianism can be included amongst the historical political positions in the infobox then authoritarianism has just as much right to be included as it is the opposite of libertarianism. To allow one but not the other when both can be cited makes no sense.

That would be fine if the sources supporting the claim of far-right were opinion pieces, but they aren't. I maintain that to include one of two cited political positions is weighting in favour of one over the other. As I said, I would have no problem with the other option of including neither, but not the approach of selecting one over the other. Helper201 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not the same category.

So you again do not understand what means not presenting opinions as facts...multiple sources present many things differently and anything they claim should be judged carefully, like that any source is a form of opinion, that's why we have to carefully evaulate them in accordance to our practices. As I already reflected this issue has been already discussed, even being explicitly incoclusive about one part, despite letting the political position spectrum in the infobox to summarize the various description of sources, however we agreed the lead not to be modified etc. because of the earlier referred reasons, so this issue is null and void.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

I second that. And lead and infobox now seems ok.93.86.23.57 (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We are clearly at an impasse, so I'm going to wait for input from other editors. I stand by what I said. Helper201 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but regardless that you stand for them, it has been demonsrated why your approaches are erronous.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Authoritarianism is generally held as a form of government and style of governance rather than an ideology/political orientation per se. I've not seen it be listed as a party ideology even for parties in one-party systems.

Regarding the second point, I support removing the political spectre position from the opening sentence altogether, instead listing its predominant ideological orientation only. This is a common practice with wiki pages of political parties.

Both labels are furthermore quite weighty and staunchly disputed by the party and not supported by many sources so presenting it as matter of fact in the intro may be an issue in terms of neutrality until there is overwhelming consensus (instead of only partial consensus) in reliable sources. As a consensus position, we could instead include a sentence like: "The party has more recently increasingly come to be described as a far-right party and criticised for alleged authoritarian governing tendencies." As an actual ideological orientation, illiberalism may be included in the infobox instead; this is in fact a self-declared political position of Fidesz.

P.S.: I would just like to reiterate my opposition to KIENGIR's unfounded distinction between domestic and foreign reliable sources. Furthermore, I think KIENGIR's imperious and domineering assertions of his positions as established and incontrovertible fact are not conducive to the spirit of open debate as becoming of Wikipedia, so I would sincerely ask the user to please observe wiki discussion etiquette and refrain from such a rhetorical style.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Jay,

to your points:

- agree

- we may consider removal and only leave national-conservative, however, the current description is totally accurate, as explained, the phenomenon you describe is not unilateral

- the description you consider here is already part of the article, and here illiberalism->illiberal democracy is a governing system, the question is how it would be transformed to an ideology (?)

- P.S. I did not make necessarily disctintion, I described facts, in Hungary political positions are clear, not necessarily even the opposition consider what some outsiders/unprofessional in the domestic politics. I have to protest your last remark, just because the are exact and precise/sharp argumentation on a specific matter, it has nothing to do against wikietiquette, e.g. I won't start to be imprecise and inaccurate, just becase you would have a dislike on me or my argumentation/knowledge, it is not different in the field of engineering or medical science as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

"the current description is totally accurate, as explained, the phenomenon you describe is not unilateral" Please, elaborate.

Here is how Merriam Webster defines illiberalism: "opposition to or lack of liberalism." Thus, I think illiberalism may be used as a specific ideological designation.

"the description you consider here is already part of the article" True, but the question under discussion is whether and how we should include it in the introduction section.

I would just like to point out that saying that a party is right-wing/far-right is different than saying a party is right-wing populist; the latter may apply to far-right parties as well and does not inherently specify a party's precise position on the political spectrum. Thus, we may e.g. designate the party as right-wing populist and national-conservative without specifying position on political spectrum in intro, then go on to say it is sometimes described as far-right.

You have a tendency of declaring your position as incontrovertible fact and the positions of others as mere opinion. It's demeaning to other editors and not in accordance with wiki discussion etiquette.

Regards, -J

Jay,

- I won't repeat our discussion which we already conducted before, there we discussed it

- well the party defined it as designating those formations who designate themselves as liberals, on the other hand their policies/actions/views deteriorated from it's original intent and they sided with left-wing or (post-)socialist parties after the fall of Communism, however the latter would especially meant for domestic politics but not exclusively, the question is how to integrate it given the WP article that denotes not exactly the short definition presented, e.g.

- obviously not, I would better keep what is now, or the other solution I discussed, since many parties are sometimes desribed/accused with various epithets, it is not lead worthy which needs to be concise, these have the relevant place in the article for other stuff

- I disagree, if there are solid points or facts, communicating them has nothing to do with wikietiquette, the most important is not confuse them.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC))

I'm not really sure what your first 2 point are in answer to or what you're even trying to tell me. Could you please rephrase your thoughts in a clearer manner?

On your 3rd point; what was your other solution? It is general practice with political party wiki articles to include radical/hardline views or political positions in the introduction exactly because such data may be salient for a concise overview. Of course it is a question of whether reliable sources support the assertion and how many sources support it, as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight.

There's a difference between politely expressing your position, and bludgeoning other editors with it.

Kind regards, -J

• Since both right wing and far right are supported by trusted sources, I see no problem with expressing the ideological position as a spectrum (right-wing to far-right). That being said, I do agree that Authoritarianism is more of a political system than it is a political ideology. I'm sure it could be argued otherwise, as the definition of "ideology" is very flexible. Illiberalism, however, through its very etymological basis as opposition to liberalism, is a political ideology and should be added, especially since it is a label that the party itself has embraced. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Jay,

- I was answering to please elaborate, and what the party means/considers/defines about illiberalism

- as told by me above once, only leave national-conservative

- I politely expressed my position, btw. the demonstration of one's mistake or solid argumentation/opinions has nothing to do with bludgeoning.

- PraiseVivec, I am not necessarily opposing adding illiberalism as an ideology per se, I just wish to do everything accurately in conform with the framework of WP. Especially I am not sure we should even link it, or if we link, exactly where to.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

Orban may speak about his illiberal vision amorphously and in a rambling manner sometimes, however, I think that we can discern by both words and actions that the party's illiberalism at its core aligns quite neatly with what is the generally accepted definition of illiberalism; a society where civil liberties and formerly pluralistic institutions are supplanted in favour of an overarching majoritarian cultural-political project.

In any case, Orban's words on the matter are actually not a pre-requisite for such a designation, since reliable sources describing Fidesz's illiberalism as in line with the general definition suffice. Orban has furthermore quoted Turkey, Russia, and China as examples of viable non-liberal states.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What about linking it to the article's Tentative illustration section?(KIENGIR (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

Not sure what a "Tentative illustration section" is ...

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

([5])(KIENGIR (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC))

I don't really see what the value of that would be ...

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Fidesz's illiberalism?? illiberalism? Into infobox as a ideology? That is probably some joke of course. To we say to something is accepted and supported by sources especially in some controversial/important field, that really need wide support in political and academic community accros full spectrum. But not only that. Lets say, in this case, to something is recognized as a ideology of the political party and noted in that infobox here, that need to be proclaimed by some party members or by official policies manifesto and goals of that party. When Fidesz's manifesto or policy goals proclaim to iliberalism or autoritarianism is their goal or total abolishing of democracy than it can go with that to infobox, as their ideology. Here we don't do any advocacy of any kind and things need to be strictly neutral. Not for party but also not against. Criticism had own place into body of article. 93.86.23.57 (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@93.86.23.57 Even granting your very lofty burden of proof, I think designating illiberalism as one of the party's ideological positions meets your criteria completely; Fidesz is widely acknowledged as a prominent standard-bearer of illiberalism globally, and is furthermore explicitly endorsed by party representatives as a political ideology/goal of the party. This isn't really even criticism; that's why the Illiberalism subsection in the article body is placed in the Ideology and policies section, and not the Criticism and controversies section.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The "added value" would be that technically we would not add a governing system per se as an ideology, but we may express by appropriate linking why we considered to add it.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC))

Illiberalism is just as much a political ideology as, say, libertarianism.

"[...] but we may express by appropriate linking why we considered to add it [...]" If it didn't make sense to include it, we shouldn't include it, not tell people why we decided not to include it. Also, no one would get that from being redirected to a subsection.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A political philosophy is really near to an ideology than a governing system. WP is not perfect, as well infobox templates and many other things, and we may make it better by appropriate linkings. I doubt noone would get that, that is a very basic thing and consistently applied method in WP.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC))

• Both Fidesz's authoritarian bent and its illiberalism is well-established, easily sourceable, and sufficently notable (since those attributes set it apart from most other national EU governments), and I would support adding them to the lead. I'm agnostic on whether to consider authoritarianism an ideology or a political system for the purpose of the infobox. --Tserton (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not confuse parties with governments.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC))

Sure. (Although whenever the role of the opposition is systematically weakened to the point of only one party being viable, the line between party and government inevitably becomes blurred with time.) Irrespective of that, is still perfectly legitimate to say Fidesz has an authoritarian governing style. --Tserton (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Include authoritarianism in the infobox and lead due to the massive amount of sourcing, from peer-reviewed academic sources: (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, if you have read even just one sentence before...please do not confuse accusation towards governments with ideology of political parties. Not even technically the term with latter one.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

Many sources call Fidesz a populist-authoritarian party or similar. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, and myriads of other epithets (with lame conflations and inconsistencies, etc.). Here the issue is mainly technical, as it has been already demonstrated. One wise solution has been already outlined.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

Even though there are vastly sufficient sources describing Fidesz as authoritarian/illiberal per se, let me just address your particular objection ... The policies and governing style of a government led by a particular party is a good indicator of that party's ideological tilt; arguably even better than its merely stated political goals (e.g. platform) and rhetoric. Actions over words. Even in coalition governments, one can usually easily suss out any political differences between the coalition partners that may muddy the picture, but that is totally besides the point in the case of a one-party government as is the case for Fidesz, so I don't really see what your point is here beyond pedantics.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Hungary does not have a one-party government (that's all about "pedantics"...). We have to be neutral and accurate and avoiding political soapboxing, and even be technically correct. That's all, and these principles I stand for is not different in any other topics (btw., regarding illiberalism, I already proposed a good solution).(KIENGIR (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC))

• Support inclusion of Illiberalism in this linked form, while no other as discussed by the various aspects and inapplicability demonstrated, these issues are in fact already covered in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC))

Just to reiterate, the question is whether the accusations are sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the introduction, regardless of whether these are already discussed or what one thinks of them. A comparable example is the introduction for Law and Justice. The Fidesz government is regularly presented as a standard example of authoritarian backsliding. Here are just a few examples from last week: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the 2022 elections are approaching, world political life is boiled up because of the recent US events, the left/right wing circles/outlets (admittedly/non-admittedly) will use all media outlets to promote their views, and this will never stop until lobbying will ever exist in the universe. Wisdom is the only one remained for us.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC))

Well, I'll take that as an admission that reliable notable sources (as per wiki) support the inclusion of authoritarianism/illiberalism into lead/infobox, but you just think all the reliable sources are wrong because they don't conform to your "wisdom". Nevertheless, there's no wiki content guideline about wisdom, only about reliable sources. Since you appear to be the only one objecting to the changes (and it seems to me that your objections are spurious), I'll just go ahead and finally include what we've been discussing in the article which can then serve as the new starting point for further discussion (if there's anything left to discuss) since it's now a question of how to include/why not to include, and not why to include.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Jay, don't take it else as I sad, your summarization is false, and also your mass incitement of sources of recent US happenings unrelated to Fidesz was not really helpful. Also I did not think, what you tried to insist "I think" (just stop this kind of behavior, as well not understanding appropriately what I considered about wisdom). Moreover, not any objection of mine are spurious, as well avoid such inappropriate desginations, and you have to stay here before any consensus reached. Currently the inclusion of Illiberalism is outlined with appropriate linking.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC))

I think it is beyond dispute at this point that:

-Illiberalism is an ideology, and that Fidesz has been described as illiberal by both an abundance of reliable sources and party officials themselves. In fact, Fidesz is regarded as one of the prime exponents and of illiberalism on the world stage.

-That numerous reliable sources have noted that Fidesz's governance has increasingly displayed authoritarian tendencies.

-That the party has been described as far-right by some reliable sources.

-There is precedent for describing similar parties as far-right/anti-democratic in the lead.

Since your objections are nebulous and are not substantive, other editors are not obliged to defer indefinitely until "consensus is reached" as defined by you. Furthermore, consensus does not mean unanimity, or that every argument is legitimate (e.g. discrediting sources that are widely regarded as reliable as "political"). Please, review Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling etc. for details.

I don't want to continue discussing the above-mentioned points ad tedium since no new arguments have arisen and I think there is sufficient consensus / grounds for amending the article and taking that as the new starting point in case of any further objections. As per be bold policy, I'll be add the discussed changes shortly, and, hopefully, in a manner more or less amenable to everyone.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

- we extensiveley discussed about illiberalism, and the conclusion was not exactly what you describe here, and there was no consensus yet about the linking

- still we have to discuss in case of inclusion how we would describe such

- lead description did not gain any consensus as well

- objections are nebulous and are not substantive is again the same type of bad faith remark which has nothing to do with the reality, since I had to more times correct your errenous satements, as you don't have an expertise knowledge of the subject, so with this you just contradict yourself. Consensus is defined by our policies, which you try to breach not the first time, on the other hand you don't know how our precedures work, it has nothing to do with the policy you cited, the discussion is ongoing and at one point we already reached consensus, some other needs discussed further, so your represeantion is false

- Again, of course there is no consensus (and you have been warned earlier), what you do is contary our policies, since any new starting point has to be defined by consensus, and such tricks like be bold policy please avoid in the future, since this is not just even a simple discussion, but an RFC.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC))

Everybody agrees that illiberalism is one of Fidesz's ideological orientations (even by the criteria set forth by the IP, since it is both supported by numerous sources and self-proclaimed). Fidesz's political goals and governance exactly match what is described in the intro of Illiberal democracy. Besides linking to a subsection being quite clunky, Orban's views are entirely irrelevant; he is obviously not a reliable source, and reliable sources describe Fidesz as the standard example of illiberalism. We do not owe it to Orban to defer to him to self-define what he thinks illiberalism is actually.

A majority of editors agree that authoritarianism is not an ideology. However, everybody agrees that there are numerous journalistic and scholarly sources from all around the world noting and analysing Fidesz's authoritarian tendencies. Even you do, you just disregard them as foreign media / domestic opposition which is a thoroughly illegitimate argument and is to be disregarded itself since it clearly goes against WP reliable sources criteria.

Notable controversial aspects of political parties are regularly briefly mentioned in wiki intros, this is common practice. Fidesz is viewed as a standard-bearer of illiberalism, democratic backsliding and political polarisation by sources from all around the world and diverse political orientation (leftist/liberal/centrist/centre-right/right-wing democratic). For this reason, Fidesz has been ostracised by both the likes of EU/EPP and prominent right-leaning int'l publications.

My changes were thus entirely in line with the rough consensus that has emerged (excluding illegitimate arguments such as disregarding reliable sources). We are unlikely to arrive at unanimity, but I think I did my best to try and square the circle in good faith. Consensus does not mean we're all obliged to maintain the current version and endulge you in long-winded debates based on arguments that are dubious at best until the sun goes out (moreover, as the section grows in length new editors will not read the whole wall of text and we'll inevitably get bogged down in the same arguments over and over again).

I would ask the other participating editors to review my changes that have been reverted by KIENGIR (see: [13]) and give a rough yea/ney and suggest improvements. We may add right-wing populist to the introductory sentence to more clearly delineate the party's political position while avoiding explicitly noting the position on political spectrum there (right-wing populist parties may or may not be far-right).

I'm not gonna respond to your disparaging remarks. I'm sure I'm hiterto validated by my words and yours in themselves. I've said my piece and don't really see any point in further discussing any point. I'd just note that I see no evidence of a RfC request.

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Jay,

- I don't understand why you think this lengthy explanations are important, since I support including Illiberalism like this (full WP compliant linking, specialized, exactly what's the case). You could have said ok, or you could have said then include without a link etc, this would a consensus building step towards and would come to a result on this.

- this point we even did not start to discuss, because of the first which could have been settled. About this we have had mainly a technical dicussion in more aspects as outlined

- the same the detailed discussion did not even started about this, which should take place after the issues are solved point-by-point.

- your changes was just partially "in-line" about what is outlined here, and not I am responsible mainly for being lengthy (any this thread is not even so much long comparing to others), in fact you are repeating things instead of stepping forward point by point (and again, there is no way to exempt of our rules to make such moves)

- Regarding the content of what you did, I would agree adding illiberalism with the linking I proposed, as well a short mention of the lead of the accusations of authoritarianism, similarly like at Law and Justice, but no change on the political position, which has been anyway discussed numerous times. However, the exact wordage of any new additions should be first presented and accepted here.

- I don't have any disparaging remarks, sorry but I have to tell you the facts directly, as well in case you are inexperienced of dispute resolution processes and the relating rules and guidelines or any other area, I have to inform you directly.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

Look, the problem is that we're haphazardly discussing like a dozen different questions (if authoritarianism is an ideology, if there are sufficiently reliable sources to mention authoritarianism in the intro, if authoritarianism should be mentioned in the intro, how authoritarianism should be mentioned in the intro, if illiberalism is an ideology, if illiberalism is Fidesz's ideology, if we should link to a section of illiberalism to let Orban self-characterise the term, if we should keep the political spectrum position in the opening sentence, if we should present the political spectrum position as either right-wing or far-right or both, if mentioning far-right in introductory sentence would give it undue weight, if we should mention political spectrum position further down in the intro and keep or remove it from the introductory sentence, if we should add an additional ideological position to the introductory sentence).

The problem with debating so many possible permutations of revisions is that not all involved editors will take a position on all of them, or sufficiently elaborate on their position (answer objections from other editors), or will endorse multiple options. This way, we'll just keep debating this ad infinitum and/or reverting each other's changes. I think it makes sense to make a draft with all the changes to move the debate forward.

And just to be clear, I was not attempting to close a discussion, but to move it forward by actually making a new version that encompasses all the revisions that were implicitly or explicitly endorsed by ~60-100% of editors in their comments so that we don't get bogged down in an endless discussion.

Thing is, none of the changes I made should even be controversial; all are backed up by reliable sources and summaries of party controversies are regularly appended to wiki party intros. And Fidesz is consistently mentioned as perhaps the most notorious example of democratic backsliding and illiberalism by a plethora of reliable sources the world over, so it makes all the sense to mention it at the top. A very similar (and likely more controversially worded) intro paragraph is in fact already included on the page for Viktor Orbán. I in fact considered writing such a paragraph back when I did the major write-up of the article, and I think that if I had, we wouldn't need to have been having this discussion now.

Just to answer your illiberalism point: I've already noted why I think a wikilink to a section is not appropriate; in any case, most editors agree to include it without any preconditions, as do the sources (none mentions that Fidesz's illiberalism is in any way special or different). You've previously said that you're fine with removing "right-wing" from the intro sentence all-together (not sure if "but no change on the political position" is a reversal). As to the rest of your point - "However, the exact wordage of any new additions should be first presented and accepted here." - that's why I made the changes; so that we have a rough draft that we can actually assess.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

- I don't see why you are performing such extensive and legthy reptitions (your 1st pharagraph), instead of concentrating of the points of moving forward

- nope, it's not my fault if you are inflexible in consensus building, I already agreed a few things and those format should be finalized

- your attempt was policy breach, instead of you should have presented here literally what you'd change to what

- Your changes went a bit broad and even became too lengthy. Phrasing lead sentences are practically apart from sourcing, as I told, proposals about further additions should be presented here. Well, it does not matter in then what you have done, still would have been reviewed

- No, apart from us, two editor supported and one opposed the inclusion of illiberalism (and these three of them referred to it without link). About the other issue, I just take that in consideration as an option, but not having a final stance. "that's why I made the changes; so that we have a rough draft that we can actually assess" -> no, draft should never be "presented" in the main page, but the talk page.

- That said, literally I support the lead to expand like this "Fidesz has been criticised for alleged increasingly authoritarian tendencies since being again part of the government".(KIENGIR (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

As I see it, there isn't really much to discuss other than procedure ...

In case I violated some specific policy please refer me to the specific guideline.

The IP nominally opposed inclusion of illiberalism because he thought certain conditions could not be met (wide support from academic and journalistic sources and self-proclamation by party members/documents). Even though the standard was unreasonably harsh, it was none-the-less actually able to be fulfilled. I therefore consider the IP de facto supported inclusion since his own conditions could be met.

I found it more reasonable to make a consensus edit version to present than to describe every edit here first and wait for enough editors to opine to reach some arbitrary quorum. As said, none of the changes should really be controversial.

BTW can you please explain to me what happens if no other editor bothers to comment from here on out?

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, we gave it some time..I already explained you the guidelines (as well in the past, it's basic, evident). Regardless of your interpetation of the IP's stance, we should all agree on a presented version. As I just explained above, again, here we have some rules to follow, better to say you wished to present a proposed version of possible consensus for it, which had to be and as well could been very easily presented here, as I did e.g., this is how it works, the problems anyway I addressed.

Well, if so we should make our deal in line with the aformentioned. I say let's wait a week more, after I am willing to add to the article on what we agree. Meanwhile, you could tell me what's your opinion of the shortened sentence I proposed to the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

I'd just like to reiterate that we don't all have to agree on everything unanimously.

I think it's lacking context and too laconic; I think the extent of the coverage justifies multiple sentences. Furthermore, I think that my version should stave off any further squabbles about making even more explicit/prominent mention of the allegations; Fidesz is notorious for alleged undermining of democratic norms, and if it's not mentioned at least semi-prominently, editors may keep proposing even more prominent mentions of the controversies.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody said we have to agree on everything unanimously in general, but we have to make compromise on the future inserted text, which will mean consensus, and yes, that needs mutual agreement.

I already told what where my problems with your trial, present here an extended form of the sentence I presented, so we may formulate/discuss the details on it.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

References